Brent. Liar or just economical with the truth?

Does James Brent tell outright lies or does he just push the boundaries of truth to the limit?

Great post by John Lloyd on Pasoti about transparency,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I was wondering if some of the things attributed to James Brent can be directly traced back to him or does he just insinuate things which don't happen?

For example I'm pretty sure that originally he said that the retail units in the grandstand would benefit the club, which you could still argue that they do because he's selling them which goes towards the cost of the development and in a roundabout way you could argue that this benefits the club.

Any other statements or quotes that can now be called a lie or being extremely economical with the truth?

Brent is a 'baby faced assassin'. He has surrounded himself with 'goons' to smooth his path, to make money for himself. He has no interest in PAFC other than what he can make out of the development at HHP and elsewhere in the city.

Good post by JL.

There are also a few points regarding "Public Consultation" that need attention. I believe that Public Consultation is a part of the process prior to planning permission and has to provide the public with as much information as possible. Considering that there suddenly appears to be a school attached to the stadium that wasn't mentioned in the consultation then I think it would be fair to suggest that there has been no consultation.

What I do find happens is that Newell makes lots of statements that appear to have come from Mr Brent himself and when those statements are proven to be a crock of shit then Newell shuts up for a while and then comes back with another statement, along the lines of Leigh Rapson continually harranguing the Trust last year.

A cynic might say that Newell is having his strings pulled by someone or alternatively he really is just an ignorant fat cnut.

GOB wrote:

Good post by JL.

There are also a few points regarding "Public Consultation" that need attention. I believe that Public Consultation is a part of the process prior to planning permission and has to provide the public with as much information as possible. Considering that there suddenly appears to be a school attached to the stadium that wasn't mentioned in the consultation then I think it would be fair to suggest that there has been no consultation.

Maybe it will be a school during the week and the directors' box on match days

GOB wrote:

Good post by JL.

There are also a few points regarding "Public Consultation" that need attention. I believe that Public Consultation is a part of the process prior to planning permission and has to provide the public with as much information as possible. Considering that there suddenly appears to be a school attached to the stadium that wasn't mentioned in the consultation then I think it would be fair to suggest that there has been no consultation.

Maybe it will be a school during the week and the directors' box on match days

School? WTF?

As always John posts eloquently (which in itself will make it difficult for Newell to respond). In addition to have as non-threatening an institution as GOS making the first reply and being 100% in favour of John's opinions adds greater credibility.

What is being played out is only what people on here have been saying for months - get the jamboys so in the tent that they carry the fanbase, set up the PASB to marginalise the AFT and then not give it the information it requires to flourish.

The worst thing that Damon and the AFT could do now is to resign en masse and not stand for any resulting elections. This would play into Brent's hands. Stay in there and continue to question away.

Pokesdown wrote:

As always John posts eloquently (which in itself will make it difficult for Newell to respond). In addition to have as non-threatening an institution as GOS making the first reply and being 100% in favour of John's opinions adds greater credibility.

What is being played out is only what people on here have been saying for months - get the jamboys so in the tent that they carry the fanbase, set up the PASB to marginalise the AFT and then not give it the information it requires to flourish.

The worst thing that Damon and the AFT could do now is to resign en masse and not stand for any resulting elections. This would play into Brent's hands. Stay in there and continue to question away.

I agree but I expect there will be all sorts of attempts to remove those that question from the PASB.

I think it's very apparent even to the most tinted of avivas that they have been mugged by the Newell's, Webb's, Hooper's and possibly the Job B's, their motives are certainly not the motives of PAFC fans. They should be considered to be simply a part of a development committee.

I'm one of those who was genuinely excited when James Brent took over. I remember his speech at the Guildhall - the first thing to be done was to pay the staff. The second was to get Argyle back where they belonged - the championship. The third was that fans would be involved in decision-making.

Just when were the fans consulted about what they wanted from the development. Surely the consultation should have happened before the plans were presented for discussion. The WG seems to be full of experts in the field who should have had input rather than asking a few (how many, who were they) yes men.

Dingle wrote:

I'm one of those who was genuinely excited when James Brent took over. I remember his speech at the Guildhall - the first thing to be done was to pay the staff. The second was to get Argyle back where they belonged - the championship. The third was that fans would be involved in decision-making.

Just when were the fans consulted about what they wanted from the development. Surely the consultation should have happened before the plans were presented for discussion. The WG seems to be full of experts in the field who should have had input rather than asking a few (how many, who were they) yes men.

That's three great examples.

The club has a large database of members and could easily have extracted a list and emailed / written to them with their proposals asking for feedback and input. It's no surprise perhaps that stakeholder engagement does not figure in their code of conduct. I'm disappointed all round at the evident lack of professionalism of this Board.

The fact that Mr Brent and the Board are approachable keeps being dragged up. Yes, we can see them, speak to them, ask questions. I'm guessing that many people didn't bother to go to the Citibus meeting because they'd already asked questions via websites and the Theatre Royal meeting. What we don't ever get are answers.

Dingle wrote:

The fact that Mr Brent and the Board are approachable keeps being dragged up. Yes, we can see them, speak to them, ask questions. I'm guessing that many people didn't bother to go to the Citibus meeting because they'd already asked questions via websites and the Theatre Royal meeting. What we don't ever get are answers.

And when we do get answers we find that Board Members haven't got a clue what's going on.

A school in a football stadium?

What's going on over there? Is that actually serious?